Global Warming Alarmist Tries Suing Critics into Silence

Six years ago, climatologist Dr. Tim Ball challenged the data and scientific methodology of Michael E. Mann’s (in)famous “hockey-stick” temperature graph. As did several other climate observers. But for his harshest critics, Mann took the unusual step of suing them for libel.

Ball, a Canadian citizen, wrote an op-ed in which he wrote that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” The suit alleged that Ball’s statements were factually untrue and defamatory.

In the op-ed, Ball was referring to Mann’s hockey-stick graph, which eliminated the widely accepted Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of 950-1250 A.D. and introduced a pronounced uptick in temperatures in the late 20th century.

Mann is a professor of meteorology at Penn State University and a well-known climate activist. His bread and butter comes from the many books he’s written on the hockey-stick graph and global warming, paid speeches, and federal research grants, along with his university salary.

Mann’s graph was widely hailed when first published and was incorporated into reports published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Western governments, including the U.S., used it as evidence that man-made warming was occurring at a much faster rate than traditional measuring devices were recording. It was used as a bulwark for draconian regulations and costly U.N. policies.

A Disgrace to the ProfessionTo rebut Mann’s claims, Ball created his own graph, which relied on land, sea, and satellite temperature data — and showed a much warmer MWP with current temperatures well within normal ranges.

Along with Ball, Mann also sued columnist Mark Steyn for libel after he wrote an op-ed in National Review disparaging his hockey-stick graph. The D.C. Court of Appeals is overseeing that case. Mann also filed separate hockey-stick suits against National Review, Rand Simberg, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The Circuit Court ruled in Dec. 2016 that Mann’s defamation suits could go to trial, despite dissenting amicus briefs from a host of news outlets such as Time, NBC News, The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, and the Los Angeles Times.

Dave Neese of the Trentonian wrote that “Should Mann ultimately prevail, the long-time favorable legal jig will be up for the media.”

So why did his legal team choose Washington, D.C., to file their suits, a district where neither Mann nor Steyn resides? Likely because it has one of the most liberal benches in the country, stuffed to the rafters with progressive judges President Obama appointed.

In one of the court’s more bizarre decisions, it ruled that Steyn wasn’t entitled to Mann’s underlying data or methodology, calling it his ‘intellectual property.’ But things are different in Canada.

As Ball points out, “This [suppression] ruling was made despite the fact the U.S. taxpayers paid for the research, and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment.”

And in Canada, you can’t “withhold documents that are central to your defamation regardless of any U.S. rulings.”

A Self-Described Nobel Laureate
When Mann began his multimillion-dollar lawsuits six years ago, his complaint hinged on the defendants committing the libelous crime of “defaming the reputation of a Nobel Prize recipient.”

Mann premised his lawsuits on the fact that he was a Nobel Laureate and had the right to sue the aforementioned writers (plus three other entities) for assailing his character.

But after inquiring with The Norwegian Nobel Institute, it was revealed Mann neither won the Nobel Peace Prize nor was a co-recipient.

At the time, the IPCC issued certificates that thanked participants “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize.” As such, he lied on a legal affidavit submitted to the court under penalty of perjury.

All of which calls into question what else may be untrue in his complaint and the highly publicized, discredited hockey-stick graph.

The Nobel prize claim has subsequently led to innumerable delays — since Mann had to resubmit his previous complaint without the statement that he was a “self-inferred Nobel Laureate.”

Steyn wrote in his brief that “Mann’s fraudulent claim should cause him embarrassment, but it should surely not justify resetting the procedural clock back to the beginning on this case,” which it did.

Contempt of Court
Meanwhile in Canada, the British Columbia (B.C.) Supreme Court had given Mann a generous adjournment for a trial scheduled to begin on Feb. 20, 2017. Ball says Canadian courts “always grant adjournments before a trial” as they believe an “out-of-court settlement is preferable.”

rakooi

Michael Mann already WON this debate:
universally accepted graph of world temps.http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
…
Mann was sued by Right Winger PRO KILLER COAL energy monopoly entities and won, hands down !
.
*** “It’s claimed that scientists falsify the theory of global warming in order to receive funding.
.
The problem with this argument is that any funding that is provided (not to individuals but to respected & tightly monitored institutions)
will be strictly controlled and in most cases will be monitored and audited by the funding body and / or their appointed auditors and/or the institutions.

“Any deliberate misappropriation of funding would be a criminal offence for which the offender could be jailed. This has never happened.

The Virginia State Attorney – Ken Cuccinelli – embarked on something of a witch-hunt against the climate scientist Michael Mann and invoked the
** Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act ……claiming that Dr. Mann had misappropriated public funds.

rakooi

Amber

When did the IPCC drop the use of Mann’s hockey stick and why ?
Certainly if they peer reviewed it and found it scientifically credible they would continue to rely on it .
The peer review of Mann’s hockey stick data and methodology must be available from a number of sources if it was properly peer reviewed especially from the IPCC who used it did they not ?
Since when is “intellectual property ” a pass from the scientific method . Yeah I discovered the cure for cancer but oh no no no
you can’t see my work . You might find something wrong with it .
What is the new trial date ?
who at one point apparently used it .

But that is what one can expect from people who are dumber than animals, insects, and even plants, almost all of whom have enough sense to move to cooler climates, either by going to higher elevations, or the poles http://dnusbaum.com/AGWdeniers.html

G

Hmmmm… a “denier site”… That sounds a lot more like the Spanish Inquisition than anything resembling science or free and open debate. You’re obviously quite proud of your intellectual superiority, to the point of telling others what they may discuss.

Hey Doug, (or Drew) please reach down from your throne of wisdom and explain how the Koch Brothers and free market economics caused the massive glacier covering my property to melt just 11,000 years ago. Isn’t that climate change too?